[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2013-October-23, 17:50, said:

This seems an unwarranted assumption. As jallerton says:


According to forum rules:

"It is often unsuitable for players to be named in cases posted to these four forums, unless a poster is naming himself, or has the agreement of the person named. So posts should generally not name players, though giving the perceived level of a player is normal. If a poster considers a post should name a player or players for a particular reason he can seek advice from a moderator first, giving the reason."

There have been cases where players are identifiable, which is generally considered to be a breach of the above, though it is a judgement based on how identifiable. Many months ago a poster claimed someone was identifiable, and someone who never posts here was invited to support him by also claiming it was identifiable. It is not our policy to make great efforts to stop someone with such a mind from finding out.

But this case is different. As soon as a link was posted to a website where players can be easily identified then in my view the forum rules were breached. I have deleted the offending post, and also another post that quoted it in full [for no apparent reason].

So while I am not worried about whether people whose aim is to cause trouble could find something out I am worried when people make identification very easy, and that is not permitted in these forums.

I am unconvinced that this practice is best or even practical. It should be normal to be able to report what happens at the table. This is completely analogous to what happens in sports everywhere. Can you imagine a report "the goal was disallowed because a player who we can't identify was offside."

In addition publicity and technology have arguably cleaned up many sports. Hiding the actions of players does little to progress fair play.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2013-October-23, 16:13, said:

But it raises the following interesting thought. The 1♠ bid onwards is not regulated under Level 4 (Blue Book 7.4.1: "From responder's first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted"), so what are your thoughts on the position if E (in the OP) / W (at the table apparently) had alerted partner's 1♠ and, when asked about it, explained that "it's a two-way bid: either a normal 1♠ response, or a weak hand, short in ♠, probably with ♥ support, and with that or another run-out destination available". Whilst there is a bar on systemic psyching it's not at all obvious that that test is applicable, and nor is the bar on psychic controls. (Rather unfortunately, these psyche-related regulations now appear only in the White Book, not the Blue, and even fewer players will read that.)

Indeed, I recall a frequent psycher's partner alerting 1♠ in this auction at Young Chelsea on a Friday night as "showing 13 cards". That seems to cater for all hand types and is a permitted means of developing the auction.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on 2013-October-23, 19:46, said:

I am unconvinced that this practice is best or even practical. It should be normal to be able to report what happens at the table. This is completely analogous to what happens in sports everywhere. Can you imagine a report "the goal was disallowed because a player who we can't identify was offside."

In addition publicity and technology have arguably cleaned up many sports. Hiding the actions of players does little to progress fair play.

Kindly use spitballs, steroids, or point-shaving for your sports analogy. Offside? Gimme a break.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-23, 20:07, said:

Kindly use spitballs, steroids, or point-shaving for your sports analogy. Offside? Gimme a break.

In this country we report: "a Liverpool forward, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was banned for 10 games for biting a Chelsea player. It is against FA rules to inspect team sheets to try to guess who he is."

[StevenG]

lamford, on 2013-October-23, 19:18, said:

So, if any breach of forum rules has occurred, it was by RMB1 and mr1303, who jointly enabled identification of the players by giving the event and one of the partnerships by their postings.

I agree completely. I have, out of curiosity, identified many of the so-called offenders in EBU events just from the hand (as given in the post) and the EBU results pages. (Mostly I want to find out how strong and/or experienced they are). Most, but not all, of those I looked for from the recent Brighton series were easy to find. You can't stop it, other than by distorting the original hand - why try?

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-23, 06:46, said:

The EBU's point of view in these cases is that it is hard to prove that such agreements exist, but that the proof is in the pudding:
    If a player takes an unusually cautious action, to accomodate for the possibility that partner has psyched, that proves that such an agreement exists.

I think the EBU's position is closer to ... the director will rule as though such an agreement existed.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2013-October-23, 15:40, said:

Yes there appear to be quite a lot of points in the pack; that normally just implies that everyone is a bit light for their actions. The fact that partner has chosen to bid 1♠, despite appearing to hold relatively few high cards, suggests to me that he wants to emphasise spades, presumably at least five spades with some shape. Why do you assume that a player does not hold the suit he has chosen to bid?

It's not a matter of assuming partner has psyched, but of catering for the possibility that he has done so. If you judge, without using a CPU, that a possible explanation for the auction is that partner has psyched, the Laws allow you to act on that judgement. An approach which demands certainty before you cater for a psych does not.

[gnasher]

PeterAlan, on 2013-October-23, 16:13, said:

But it raises the following interesting thought. The 1♠ bid onwards is not regulated under Level 4 (Blue Book 7.4.1: "From responder's first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted"), so what are your thoughts on the position if E (in the OP) / W (at the table apparently) had alerted partner's 1♠ and, when asked about it, explained that "it's a two-way bid: either a normal 1♠ response, or a weak hand, short in ♠, probably with ♥ support, and with that or another run-out destination available". Whilst there is a bar on systemic psyching it's not at all obvious that that test is applicable, and nor is the bar on psychic controls.

That would be legal. The bar is on using an agreement to expose deviations from your announced agreements, not on having an announced agreement that a bid is two-way.

Quote

(Rather unfortunately, these psyche-related regulations now appear only in the White Book, not the Blue, and even fewer players will read that.)

Me too.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-October-24, 03:48, said:

That would be legal. The bar is on using an agreement to expose deviations from your announced agreements, not on having an announced agreement that a bid is two-way.

I agree. One can play a 1NT overcall as either 15-17 or a weak two in clubs provided it is alerted and explained as that, under BB7E3c, regardless of how often it is the latter hand type. The latter will tend to pass Stayman, of course. Also 1X-(Dble)-Rdble can be alerted and explained as either 10+ or a weak five-card raise of X, even if the latter hand type rarely occurs.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-23, 20:07, said:

Kindly use spitballs, steroids, or point-shaving for your sports analogy. Offside? Gimme a break.

I don't think those examples are comparable to a psyche, because 1) they are outright cheating, which a psyche is not, and 2) they are things that the player is doing covertly and attempting to conceal. Whereas, a psyche, like any bid, is known information as soon as it hits the table.

In general I tend to think that if a player is willing to make a bid in a public game, then said bid is by default already public information, in that there is no expectation of privacy. Hence I have no problem discussing it in an internet forum. If he is shamed by it (which I really doubt), maybe he shouldn't do it publicly to begin with.

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2013-October-24, 06:43, said:

I don't think those examples are comparable to a psyche, because 1) they are outright cheating, which a psyche is not, and 2) they are things that the player is doing covertly and attempting to conceal. Whereas, a psyche, like any bid, is known information as soon as it hits the table.

Of course a psyche is not cheating. I was not suggesting it is. We were talking about the fielding of a psyche by illegal means (or just plain illegally). "Offside" in football doesn't carry a stigma. Other acts which are against the rules in a physical sport do carry a stigma, as does fielding a psyche in Bridge.

[mr1303]

By my reckoning, the terms of service say that I may name myself in a post. I did so - I said the events occurred at the table I was playing at. I didn't name anyone else in the post.

If I may not refer to events that happened to me, this forum might as well not exist.

[aguahombre]

mr1303, on 2013-October-24, 09:45, said:

By my reckoning, the terms of service say that I may name myself in a post. I did so - I said the events occurred at the table I was playing at. I didn't name anyone else in the post.

If I may not refer to events that happened to me, this forum might as well not exist.

It is the Law 23 of BBF.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-October-24, 01:55, said:

I think the EBU's position is closer to ... the director will rule as though such an agreement existed.

Does that distinction make a difference?

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2013-October-23, 19:46, said:

I am unconvinced that this practice is best or even practical. It should be normal to be able to report what happens at the table. This is completely analogous to what happens in sports everywhere. Can you imagine a report "the goal was disallowed because a player who we can't identify was offside."

In addition publicity and technology have arguably cleaned up many sports. Hiding the actions of players does little to progress fair play.

I do sometimes get tired of totally inappropriate comparisons from sports that are totally dissimilar. The forum rules may be wrong or right, but they are not wrong because they are different from spectator sports: bridge is neither spectator, nor is it sport.

Of course the last sentence is a reasonable view. Nevertheless, the forum rules are not being changed at this time.

mr1303, on 2013-October-24, 09:45, said:

By my reckoning, the terms of service say that I may name myself in a post. I did so - I said the events occurred at the table I was playing at. I didn't name anyone else in the post.

If I may not refer to events that happened to me, this forum might as well not exist.

The forum rules specifically allow naming oneself.



I regret I have had to delete another post. Feel free to continue discussing this case or its ramifications without any attempt to clarify who was involved. If you want to discuss whether the forum rules should be changed, please start another thread. But any discussion that involves whether the original problem was judged fairly or who was at fault is inappropriate: such posts will be deleted and if necessary the topic will be closed.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2013-October-24, 14:22, said:

bridge is neither spectator, nor is it sport.

I disagree. In June 1995, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) admitted the World Bridge Federation (WBF) as part of the Olympic Movement, awarding it the status of a Recognized Sport Organization. This recognition was accorded under Rule 4 of the Olympic Charter.

And I recall 5000 people at one time watching Zia's win of the Bermuda Bowl on Bridgebase. If they were not spectators, I do not know why they were on Vugraph.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2013-October-24, 14:22, said:

any discussion that involves whether the original problem was judged fairly or who was at fault is inappropriate: such posts will be deleted and if necessary the topic will be closed.

It seems that the entire well-received series from Brighton by VixTd involved discussion of whether the original ruling was correct, and whether any person at the table committed any infraction. Why were these threads not deleted and the topics closed?

[blackshoe]

Perhaps because those threads did not involve a situation which has been referred to the National Authority for further judgement?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-24, 18:22, said:

Perhaps because those threads did not involve a situation which has been referred to the National Authority for further judgement?

At the point at which that occurred, if it did, this thread should have been closed as further discussion could be prejudicial to any hearing. That is indeed the duty of the moderators, especially as sufficient information had been made available for identification. Similarly, I would not expect discussion of any appeal on here until the appeal had taken place.

[blackshoe]

The rule is "don't identify specific players involved in a case." So don't do that. Here's another rule: don't argue with the moderator. Any further such posts will be deleted. If I have to I'll delete the thread.